The interactions of ethical notions and moral values of immediate stakeholders of immunisation services in two Indian states: a qualitative study

What are the barriers and facilitators to polio vaccination and eradication programs? A systematic review

Global efforts to eradicate polio by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative agency partners and country-level stakeholders have led to the implementation of global polio vaccination programs. This study presents the findings of existing studies regarding the barriers and facilitators that countries face when implementing polio interventions. A comprehensive search was conducted in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science. Eligible studies underwent quality assessment. A qualitative evidence synthesis approach was conducted and aligned to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The search identified 4147 citations, and following the removal of duplicates and screening according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, 20 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. Twelve countries were represented in this review, with India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan having the most representation of available studies. We identified 36 barriers and 16 facilitators. Seven themes emerged from these barriers and facilitators: fear, community trust, infrastructure, beliefs about the intervention, influential opinions, intervention design, and geo-politics. The most frequently cited CFIR constructs for the facilitators and barriers were knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, followed by available resources. This study identified a wide range of barriers and facilitators to polio vaccination implementation across the globe, adding to the scarce body of literature on these barriers and facilitators from an implementation perspective and using a determinant framework. The diversity of factors among different groups of people or countries highlights the relevance of contexts. Implementers should be conversant with the contexts within which polio eradication programs boost intervention coverage and capacity. This study provides policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with a tool for planning and designing polio immunization programs. Trial registration: A protocol for this systematic review was developed and uploaded onto the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews database (Registration number: CRD42020222115).

Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent serious illnesses and deaths in children. However, worldwide, many children do not receive all recommended vaccinations, for several potential reasons. Vaccines might be unavailable, or parents may experience difficulties in accessing vaccination services; for instance, because of poor quality health services, distance from a health facility, or lack of money. Some parents may not accept available vaccines and vaccination services. Our understanding of what influences parents' views and practices around childhood vaccination, and why some parents may not accept vaccines for their children, is still limited. This synthesis links to Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to improve coverage or uptake of childhood vaccination.

OBJECTIVES

- Explore parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination, and the factors influencing acceptance, hesitancy, or nonacceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Develop a conceptual understanding of what and how different factors reduce parental acceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three other databases for eligible studies from 1974 to June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that: utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on parents' or caregivers' views, practices, acceptance, hesitancy, or refusal of routine vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where childhood vaccination is provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a pre-specified sampling frame to sample from eligible studies, aiming to capture studies that were conceptually rich, relevant to the review's phenomenon of interest, from diverse geographical settings, and from a range of income-level settings. We extracted contextual and methodological data from each sampled study. We used a meta-ethnographic approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of criteria used in previous Cochrane Reviews and originally based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We integrated the findings of this review with those from relevant Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. We did this by mapping whether the underlying theories or components of trial interventions included in those reviews related to or targeted the overarching factors influencing parental views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination identified by this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 145 studies in the review and sampled 27 of these for our analysis. Six studies were conducted in Africa, seven in the Americas, four in South-East Asia, nine in Europe, and one in the Western Pacific. Studies included urban and rural settings, and high-, middle-, and low-income settings. Many complex factors were found to influence parents' vaccination views and practices, which we divided into four themes. Firstly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their broader ideas and practices surrounding health and illness generally, and specifically with regards to their children, and their perceptions of the role of vaccination within this context. Secondly, many parents' vaccination ideas and practices were influenced by the vaccination ideas and practices of the people they mix with socially. At the same time, shared vaccination ideas and practices helped some parents establish social relationships, which in turn strengthened their views and practices around vaccination. Thirdly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by wider political issues and concerns, and particularly their trust (or distrust) in those associated with vaccination programmes. Finally, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their access to and experiences of vaccination services and their frontline healthcare workers. We developed two concepts for understanding possible pathways to reduced acceptance of childhood vaccination. The first concept, 'neoliberal logic', suggests that many parents, particularly from high-income countries, understood health and healthcare decisions as matters of individual risk, choice, and responsibility. Some parents experienced this understanding as in conflict with vaccination programmes, which emphasise generalised risk and population health. This perceived conflict led some parents to be less accepting of vaccination for their children. The second concept, 'social exclusion', suggests that some parents, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, were less accepting of childhood vaccination due to their experiences of social exclusion. Social exclusion may damage trustful relationships between government and the public, generate feelings of isolation and resentment, and give rise to demotivation in the face of public services that are poor quality and difficult to access. These factors in turn led some parents who were socially excluded to distrust vaccination, to refuse vaccination as a form of resistance or a way to bring about change, or to avoid vaccination due to the time, costs, and distress it creates. Many of the overarching factors our review identified as influencing parents' vaccination views and practices were underrepresented in the interventions tested in the four related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review has revealed that parents' views and practices regarding childhood vaccination are complex and dynamic social processes that reflect multiple webs of influence, meaning, and logic. We have provided a theorised understanding of the social processes contributing to vaccination acceptance (or not), thereby complementing but also extending more individualistic models of vaccination acceptance. Successful development of interventions to promote acceptance and uptake of childhood vaccination will require an understanding of, and then tailoring to, the specific factors influencing vaccination views and practices of the group(s) in the target setting. The themes and concepts developed through our review could serve as a basis for gaining this understanding, and subsequent development of interventions that are potentially more aligned with the norms, expectations, and concerns of target users.

Social media, vaccine hesitancy and trust deficit in immunization programs: a qualitative enquiry in Malappuram District of Kerala, India

BACKGROUND

With increased penetration of the internet and social media, there are concerns regarding its negative role in influencing parents' decisions regarding vaccination for their children. It is perceived that a mix of religious reasons and propaganda by anti-vaccination groups on social media are lowering the vaccination coverage in Malappuram district of Kerala. We undertook a qualitative study to understand the factors responsible for generating and perpetuating vaccine hesitancy, the pathways of trust deficit in immunization programs and the interaction between various social media actors.

METHODS

In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted among parents/caregivers, physicians, public sector health staff, alternative system medical practitioners, field healthcare workers and teachers in areas with highest and lowest vaccination coverage in the district, as well as with communication experts.

RESULTS

The trust deficit between parents/caregivers and healthcare providers is created by multiple factors, such as providers' lack of technical knowledge, existing patriarchal societal norms and critical views of vaccine by naturopaths and homeopaths. Anti-vaccine groups use social media to influence caregivers' perceptions and beliefs. Religion does not appear to play a major role in creating vaccine resistance in this setting.

CONCLUSIONS

A long-term, multipronged strategy should be adopted to address the trust deficit. In the short to medium term, the health sector can focus on appropriate and targeted vaccine-related communication strategies, including the use of infographics, soft skills training for healthcare workers, technical competency improvement through a mobile application-based repository of information and creation of a media cell to monitor vaccine-related conversations in social media and to intervene if needed.

Social media, vaccine hesitancy and trust deficit in immunization programs: a qualitative enquiry in Malappuram District of Kerala, India

Background

With increased penetration of the internet and social media, there are concerns regarding its negative role in influencing parents’ decisions regarding vaccination for their children. It is perceived that a mix of religious reasons and propaganda by anti-vaccination groups on social media are lowering the vaccination coverage in Malappuram district of Kerala. We undertook a qualitative study to understand the factors responsible for generating and perpetuating vaccine hesitancy, the pathways of trust deficit in immunization programs and the interaction between various social media actors.

Methods

In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted among parents/caregivers, physicians, public sector health staff, alternative system medical practitioners, field healthcare workers and teachers in areas with highest and lowest vaccination coverage in the district, as well as with communication experts.

Results

The trust deficit between parents/caregivers and healthcare providers is created by multiple factors, such as providers’ lack of technical knowledge, existing patriarchal societal norms and critical views of vaccine by naturopaths and homeopaths. Anti-vaccine groups use social media to influence caregivers' perceptions and beliefs. Religion does not appear to play a major role in creating vaccine resistance in this setting.

Conclusions

A long-term, multipronged strategy should be adopted to address the trust deficit. In the short to medium term, the health sector can focus on appropriate and targeted vaccine-related communication strategies, including the use of infographics, soft skills training for healthcare workers, technical competency improvement through a mobile application-based repository of information and creation of a media cell to monitor vaccine-related conversations in social media and to intervene if needed.

Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is an effective way to prevent serious childhood illnesses, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. There are various reasons for this; some parents lack access because of poor quality health services, long distances or lack of money. Other parents may not trust vaccines or the healthcare workers who provide them, or they may not see the need for vaccination due to a lack of information or misinformation about how vaccinations work and the diseases they can prevent.Communication with parents about childhood vaccinations is one way of addressing these issues. Communication can take place at healthcare facilities, at home or in the community. Communication can be two-way, for example face-to-face discussions between parents and healthcare providers, or one-way, for instance via text messages, posters or radio programmes. Some types of communication enable parents to actively discuss vaccines and their benefits and harms, as well as diseases they can prevent. Other communication types simply give information about vaccination issues or when and where vaccines are available. People involved in vaccine programmes need to understand how parents experience different types of communication about vaccination and how this influences their decision to vaccinate.

OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the review were to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring: parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences regarding communication about childhood vaccinations and the manner in which it is communicated; and the influence that vaccination communication has on parents' and informal caregivers' decisions regarding childhood vaccination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-process and Other Non-Index Citations (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), and Anthropology Plus (EbscoHost) databases for eligible studies from inception to 30 August 2016. We developed search strategies for each database, using guidelines developed by the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group for searching for qualitative evidence as well as modified versions of the search developed for three related reviews of effectiveness. There were no date or geographic restrictions for the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on the views and experiences of parents and informal caregivers regarding information about vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where information about childhood vaccinations was communicated or distributed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used maximum variation purposive sampling for data synthesis, using a three-step sampling frame. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparison strategy for data extraction and synthesis. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. High confidence suggests that it is highly likely that the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest, while very low confidence indicates that it is not clear whether the review finding is a reasonable representation of it. Using a matrix model, we then integrated our findings with those from other Cochrane reviews that assessed the effects of different communication strategies on parents' knowledge, attitudes and behaviour about childhood vaccination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 studies, mostly from high-income countries, many of which explored mothers' perceptions of vaccine communication. Some focused on the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.In general, parents wanted more information than they were getting (high confidence in the evidence). Lack of information led to worry and regret about vaccination decisions among some parents (moderate confidence).Parents wanted balanced information about vaccination benefits and harms (high confidence), presented clearly and simply (moderate confidence) and tailored to their situation (low confidence in the evidence). Parents wanted vaccination information to be available at a wider variety of locations, including outside health services (low confidence) and in good time before each vaccination appointment (moderate confidence).Parents viewed health workers as an important source of information and had specific expectations of their interactions with them (high confidence). Poor communication and negative relationships with health workers sometimes impacted on vaccination decisions (moderate confidence).Parents generally found it difficult to know which vaccination information source to trust and challenging to find information they felt was unbiased and balanced (high confidence).The amount of information parents wanted and the sources they felt could be trusted appeared to be linked to acceptance of vaccination, with parents who were more hesitant wanting more information (low to moderate confidence).Our synthesis and comparison of the qualitative evidence shows that most of the trial interventions addressed at least one or two key aspects of communication, including the provision of information prior to the vaccination appointment and tailoring information to parents' needs. None of the interventions appeared to respond to negative media stories or address parental perceptions of health worker motives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high or moderate confidence in the evidence contributing to several review findings. Further research, especially in rural and low- to middle-income country settings, could strengthen evidence for the findings where we had low or very low confidence. Planners should consider the timing for making vaccination information available to parents, the settings where information is available, the provision of impartial and clear information tailored to parental needs, and parents' perceptions of health workers and the information provided.

How do parents and pediatricians arrive at the decision to immunize their children in the private sector? Insights from a qualitative study on rotavirus vaccination across select Indian cities

Key debates on improving vaccination coverage tend to focus on factors that affect uptake in the public health system while ignoring the private sector that plays an important role in providing health services in any low or middle-income country setting. Using in-depth interviews, we explored factors that influenced the decision of parents as well as pediatricians working in the private sector across 8 Indian cities on whether their children should be vaccinated with a particular vaccine Pediatricians and their relationship with parents was an important factor that influenced the decision on whether parents vaccinated their children with a particular vaccine or not. The decision to recommend a vaccine is taken on the principle that it is better to be safe than sorry than on any objective assessment of whether a child requires a particular vaccine or not. Family members and social factors also played a major role in the decision-making. According to some parents, vaccinating their child added an aspirational value to their growth. This is especially true of the newer vaccines that are considered optional in India. The cost of a vaccine did not come up as an inhibiting factor in the decision to vaccinate a child. Access to appropriate evidence was limited for both pediatricians and parents and evidence per se played a minimal role in the final decision to vaccinate a child or not. Far more important were the influences of factors such as relationship with the pediatrician, the role of decisions related to vaccination taken by people in the immediate social network.

Advancing the application of systems thinking in health: understanding the growing complexity governing immunization services in Kerala, India

BACKGROUND

Governing immunization services in a way that achieves and maintains desired population coverage levels is complex as it involves interactions of multiple actors and contexts. In one of the Indian states, Kerala, after routine immunization had reached high coverage in the late 1990s, it started to decline in some of the districts. This paper describes an application of complex adaptive systems theory and methods to understand and explain the phenomena underlying unexpected changes in vaccination coverage.

METHODS

We used qualitative methods to explore the factors underlying changes in vaccination coverage in two districts in Kerala, one with high and one with low coverage. Content analysis was guided by features inherent to complex adaptive systems such as phase transitions, feedback, path dependence, and self-organization. Causal loop diagrams were developed to depict the interactions among actors and critical events that influenced the changes in vaccination coverage.

RESULTS

We identified various complex adaptive system phenomena that influenced the change in vaccination coverage levels in the two districts. Phase transition describes how initial acceptability to vaccination is replaced by a resistance in northern Kerala, which involved new actors; actors attempting to regain acceptability and others who countered it created several feedback loops. We also describe how the authorities have responded to declining immunization coverage and its impact on vaccine acceptability in the context of certain highly connected actors playing disproportionate influence over household vaccination decisions.Theoretical exposition of our findings reveals the important role of trust in health workers and institutions that shape the interactions of actors leading to complex adaptive system phenomena.

CONCLUSIONS

As illustrated in this study, a complex adaptive system lens helps to uncover the 'real' drivers for change. This approach assists researchers and decision makers to systematically explore the driving forces and factors in each setting and develop appropriate and timely strategies to address them. The study calls for greater consideration of dynamics of vaccine acceptability while formulating immunization policies and program strategies. The analytical approaches adopted in this study are not only applicable to immunization or Kerala but to all complex interventions, health systems problems, and contexts.